Ezel / Ethics Opinions / CTBAR

May a Connecticut lawyer ask clients to submit Martindale.com reviews and allow those ratings to appear on the lawyer's profile?

Short answer Yes, with limits. The lawyer may not shape false or misleading content, pay for a recommendation, or reveal a client's identity without permission; content the lawyer writes or edits must comply with the advertising rules.
Bar
CTBAR
Issued
April 25, 2012
Source
View Original PDF

Apply this to your situation

This page answers the general question as of 2012. Ask about yours and see what the current Connecticut Rules of Professional Conduct say for your facts, with citations.

Currency note: this opinion is from 2012
Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later opinions or rule amendments may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.
Disclaimer: Advisory only. Not binding precedent.
About this page: The plain-English summary, reader guidance, and Q&A below were written by Ezel based on the official ethics opinion. The original opinion (linked on this page as a PDF) is the authoritative source for any reliance.
View original ethics opinion (PDF)

Plain-English summary

Martindale.com allowed clients to rate lawyers for communication, responsiveness, service quality, and value, recommend the lawyer, and submit narrative comments. Reviews appeared automatically, while a lawyer could respond once or suppress every review for at least two years. The lawyer could not edit or selectively remove an individual review.

The Committee gave a qualified yes to both asking clients to use the review system and allowing ratings to remain on the profile. Rules 7.1 and 8.4(1) prohibit the lawyer from instructing or suggesting that a client include false or misleading information. Rule 7.2(c) prohibits giving the client something of value in exchange for a recommendation.

Rule 1.6 separately requires the client's permission before the lawyer gives the client's name to Martindale.com. A client may independently reach the review form through the lawyer's profile without the lawyer disclosing the client's identity.

An independent client review is not the lawyer's advertising when the lawyer did not create, shape, or publish its content and cannot selectively edit it. The lawyer's own profile text, edits, or response to a review are advertising and must comply with Rules 7.1 and 7.2. The Committee also said lawyers are not responsible for searching the internet for every client comment or arranging the removal or editing of comments they did not help create, shape, or publish.

In practice

Under this opinion, responsibility follows the lawyer's role in the content. Independent reviews are treated differently from profile text, edited review language, or a response written by the lawyer.

Common questions

Q: May a lawyer ask a client to submit a Martindale.com review?

A: Yes, if the lawyer does not suggest false or misleading content, offer value for a recommendation, or disclose the client's identity without permission.

Q: May the lawyer tell the client what to write?

A: The lawyer may not instruct or suggest content that would be false or misleading under Rule 7.1. Rule 8.4(1) also bars violating the Rules through another person's acts.

Q: May the lawyer reward a client for submitting a favorable review?

A: No. Rule 7.2(c) prohibits giving something of value for recommending the lawyer's services.

Q: Is every independent client review advertising by the lawyer?

A: No. The Committee says an independently written review is not the lawyer's advertising when the lawyer did not shape it and lacks selective editing control.

Q: What if the lawyer responds to a review?

A: The response is content written by the lawyer and must comply with Rules 7.1 and 7.2.

Q: Must the lawyer monitor the entire internet for client comments?

A: No. The opinion says the lawyer need not scour the internet or seek removal or editing of comments the lawyer did not create, shape, or publish.

Background and rules framework

Rule 7.1 bars false or misleading communications about legal services. Rule 7.2 governs advertising and prohibits payment for recommendations. Rule 8.4(1) prevents a lawyer from using another person to violate the Rules, while Rule 1.6 protects the client's identity absent permission.

Citations and references

Connecticut Rules of Professional Conduct:

  • Rules 1.6, 7.1, 7.2, 7.2(c), 7.2(i)(10), and 8.4(1)

Other opinions cited:

  • Connecticut Informal Opinion 01-07, client testimonials in lawyer advertising

See also

Source

What do the rules say today, for your facts?

This opinion is from 2012. Ezel checks the current Connecticut Rules of Professional Conduct against your situation and cites the rules it relies on.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace